An Analysis of Speaking Difficulties Among University EFL Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36057/jilp.v9i1.776Keywords:
Speaking Difficulties, Efl Learners, Speaking Anxiety, Linguistic FactorsAbstract
Speaking proficiency remains one of the most challenging components of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning at the university level. This study investigates the linguistic, psychological, and environmental factors contributing to speaking difficulties among university EFL students. Using a mixed-methods descriptive design, data were collected through questionnaires, speaking performance assessments, interviews, and classroom observations. Quantitative findings show that linguistic limitations—particularly restricted vocabulary (M = 4.21), inaccurate pronunciation (M = 4.07), and grammatical inaccuracies (M = 3.98)—constitute the most dominant challenges. Psychological factors also play a significant role, with high speaking anxiety (M = 4.15) and fear of negative evaluation negatively correlating with performance (r = –0.63). Environmental and pedagogical conditions further intensify these difficulties, as large class sizes, limited speaking opportunities, and teacher-centered instruction reduce authentic oral interaction. Qualitative data support these findings by revealing recurrent anxiety, limited spontaneous speech, and restricted classroom engagement. The results highlight that speaking difficulties arise from the interplay of linguistic weaknesses, affective constraints, and contextual barriers. The study recommends integrated pedagogical approaches that strengthen linguistic competence, reduce anxiety, and provide more opportunities for meaningful communication to support students’ oral proficiency development.
Downloads
References
[1] M. Richards, Teaching and Developing Speaking Skills in EFL Contexts. London: Routledge, 2021.
[2] L. H. Park and S. Y. Lee, “Linguistic constraints in EFL oral production: A multidimensional analysis,” Journal of Language Teaching and Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 456–468, 2021.
[3] T. C. Zhang, “Foreign language speaking anxiety and speaking performance among university students: A meta-analysis,” System, vol. 102, pp. 1–15, 2022.
[4] M. Rahman and F. J. Chen, “Pedagogical barriers to developing speaking competence in large EFL classes,” English Language Teaching Review, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 89–104, 2023.
[5] S. O. Williams, “Peer interaction and task-based practices in reducing speaking anxiety: A longitudinal study,” TESOL Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 211–230, 2024.
[6] K. A. Brown and E. Larson, “Cognitive load and oral fluency in EFL learners: Implications for instructional design,” Applied Linguistics, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 233–251, 2024.
[7] H. U. González and P. Romero, “The role of corrective feedback in enhancing EFL learners’ oral accuracy: Classroom evidence from higher education,” Language Teaching Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 67–84, 2022.
[8] R. Mahdi and A. Noor, “Digital learning environments and student engagement in speaking tasks: A systematic review,” Computer-Assisted Language Learning Journal, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 915–938, 2023.
[9] D. A. Yusuf, “Students’ willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms: Predictors and pedagogical implications,” Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 355–368, 2023.
[10] J. Silva and A. Torres, “Sociocultural influences on EFL speaking participation among university students,” International Journal of Language Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 45–63, 2024.
[11] P. Nguyen and S. Tran, “Task complexity, planning time, and speaking performance in EFL learners,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 289–307, 2024.
[12] E. Martins, “Lexical access difficulties in real-time L2 speech production: A psycholinguistic perspective,” Journal of Second Language Speech, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 112–130, 2022.
[13] A. Smith and R. Brown, “Integrating mixed methods in applied linguistics research,” Journal of Language Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 112–128, 2020.
[14] M. Chen, “Mixed-methods design for examining EFL learner performance,” Language Education Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 45–59, 2021.
[15] L. Johnson, “Methodological rigor in mixed-methods language research,” Applied Linguistics Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 90–105, 2022.
[16] T. Nguyen, “Purposive sampling strategies in EFL classroom studies,” TESOL Research Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 301–315, 2020.
[17] S. Yamada, “Capturing learner and teacher perspectives in speaking instruction,” EFL Teaching Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 67–82, 2023.
[18] P. Rahman, “Developing reliable questionnaires for oral communication studies,” Journal of Language Assessment, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 130–146, 2021.
[19] R. Al-Said, “Using interviews to explore affective dimensions of EFL speaking,” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 210–225, 2022.
[20] B. Lee, “Classroom observation protocols for EFL speaking research,” Education and Language Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 55–70, 2020.
[21] K. Duarte, “Assessing oral proficiency with analytic rubrics,” Language Testing Review, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 98–115, 2023.
[22] H. Kim, “Ensuring rater reliability in speaking performance tests,” Asian EFL Assessment Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 33–47, 2020.
[23] J. Silva, “Triangulation in contemporary language education research,” Research Methods in ELT, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 144–160, 2021.
[24] R. Williams, “Quantitative approaches to analyzing EFL learner difficulties,” Journal of English Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 22–38, 2023.
[25] E. Martín, “Advances in thematic analysis for qualitative language studies,” Qualitative Linguistics Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 70–89, 2024.
[26] D. Hassan, “Ethical practices in classroom-based EFL research,” Education Ethics Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 100–118, 2022.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jurnal Ilmiah Langue and Parole
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
